Topic: A question on fumbles for natural attacks

[Merkir]

I'm trying to finalise the RM Classic attack/fumble tables for Rolemaster Combat Minion software, but I have a query regarding fumbles for natural attacks.

From RM Classic Arms Law rulebook, p.45, section 5.1, under "Unmodified Roll Results":

• An unmodified roll of 01-02 for a
natural attack or a martial arts attack
indicates a “Fumble” (See “Fumbles”,
below). Such an attack has no effect on
the defender or the attacker.

But then on the same page under "Fumble Results":

If the fumbled attack is a
natural, animal or martial arts attack, then
use the proper column of the Non-
Weapon Fumble Table that applies to the
given type of attack.
Note: If the fumbled attack is a
natural, animal or martial arts attack, then
use the proper column of the Non-
Weapon Fumble Table that applies to the
given type of attack.

So my first comment is that these two rules contradict one another, the first saying "Such an attack has no effect on the defender or the attacker" (my emphasis), whereas the second quote obviously indicates that natural attacks should use the fumble tables.

Now normally I would ignore the first passage and use the second - ie. natural attacks fumble on a 1-2. But then I see that a dagger only fumbles on a 1, and I have to ask why a natural attack like a claw or a beak fumbles twice as often as a weapon, albeit a basic weaon such as a dagger. So a claw, being part of a creature's body, fumbles more than a dagger, or the same as a short sword. IMO this makes no sense. (I realise that the natural attack fumble table may be less severe than the weapon table fumbles.)

And then I come back to the first passage above that states quite clearly (I think) that a roll of 1-2 for a natural attack has no effect on the attacker.

Also noted is that the natural attack tables themselves give "F" as the result for all 01-02 rolls, but I can't see where the "F" is defined - fail or fumble? Fail works for passage 1, above. Fumble works for passage 2.

What is the official ruling?

All I really need is confirmation that all natural attacks fumble on an unmodified roll of 1-2. Justification optional.

[markc]

Merkir,
 I would drop Nicholas HM Caldwell a PM asking his official take on the rule.


 IMHO, you should fumble an attack and roll on the fumble table. As to the fumble range of dagger vs claw, claw, bite I think that has to do with how you attack with each. I can see a beak attack having a F range of 1 where as claw attacks a F range of 1-2.
MDC

[jdale]

If you read that first quote as meaning there is really no effect on the attacker, there would be no reason to have the applicable fumble tables. So that reading doesn't make any sense. What's meant is that, if you roll a natural 01-02, you don't add up the total attack as you otherwise would. Even if you have a +150 bonus, the natural 01-02 is still a miss. And you roll a fumble.

[Merkir]

Of course I agree with you that if a fumble table exists, there has to be way to trigger it. The only logical way is as we had assumed.

We really must make sure that the RMU rules are written with more clarity compared to these old rules. I probably should have included both RMClassic paragraphs to illustrate the contradiction, shown with my emphasis below. Whoever wrote this has made a distinction between weapon attacks and natural attacks that shouldn't have been made:

• An unmodified roll of 01-02 for a
natural attack or a martial arts attack
indicates a “Fumble” (See “Fumbles”,
below). Such an attack has no effect on
the defender or the attacker.
• If a weapon Attack Roll falls
within the weapon’s “Fumble Range,”
the attacker fumbles their weapon
(See “Fumbles”, below). These fumble
ranges are printed on the appropriate
weapon attack tables. Such an attack
has no effect on the defender but may
affect the attacker.

IMO the first bullet point should never have appeared in print and the second bullet point should have had the word "weapon" removed, with fumble range printed on every attack table.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The first section seems to be an exact copy of the RM2 AL&CL; back then, there wasn't a fumble table for natural or martial attacks yet. The RM2 fumble table was added in the RoCo.I, so mayhap the second section was written whilst taking into account the later fumble table, but without the first, original, RM2 section being rewritten?

[Blackberry]

The way I'm reading it is that "Such an attack has no effect on
the defender or the attacker" refers to the UM 01-02 roll.  That roll has no effect on the defender or the attacker.  In other words, you don't add OB - DB to the roll and look up the result on the attack chart.

Whether or not the fumble result has an effect is yet to be determined at that point in the process.

[yammahoper]

The way I'm reading it is that "Such an attack has no effect on
the defender or the attacker" refers to the UM 01-02 roll.  That roll has no effect on the defender or the attacker.  In other words, you don't add OB - DB to the roll and look up the result on the attack chart.

Whether or not the fumble result has an effect is yet to be determined at that point in the process.

+1.

[Merkir]

In other words, you don't add OB - DB to the roll and look up the result on the attack chart.

And you can say exactly the same thing for a weapon attack when you roll in the fumble range, so why say a 01-02 Natural/MA attack "has no effect on the attacker", but a fumbled weapon attack "may have an effect on the attacker"? Both of these make the attacker roll on a fumble table (apparently).

I maintain my earlier comment that the two bullet points should have been combined into a more general statement.

[tbigness]

Have you not seen someone miss with a punch and punch a wall or hit themselves... I mean come on... if you roll low enough for a fumble you have an unusual event happen, even if it means you swung so hard and missed your target that you pulled a muscle or slipped or unbalanced/trip yourself or bash into a near by item or person... Think on a large brawl... lots of fumbles there.